•■■4 

m 


F.D.  Hemenway 


Biblical  Introduction   /Sr^" 


x!^:^ 

:^J  -■-" 


Y^ 


a:;; 


V 


r- 


1^ 


m''     191; 


Biblical  IntFoduetion. 


SYLLABUS. 


F.  D.  HEMENWAY,  D.  D, 


Copyrig:ht  1884,  by  F.  D.  Hkmenway,  D.  D. 


.H46 


BIBLICAL  INTRODUCTION. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures 


BY 


F.  D.   HEMEISrWAY,  D.  D., 


Professor    of    IB^regretica,!    'X'l3.eologr37', 


IN   THE 


Garrett  Biblical  Institute. 


EVANSTON,   ILL. 


NOV  27  19 

CO  f'-s-tsics-xxt'e:  ID . 


CHICAGO: 

W    P.  Dunn  &  Co.,  Printers,  57  Washington  Street, 

1884. 


d 


PRELIMINARY. 


I. 

General  View. 

1.  Definition  : 

Biblical  introduction  is  that  branch  of  theological  science 
which  is  occupied  with  the  records  of  sacred  Scripture. 

2.  Its  Province. 

It  proposes  to  lead  us  into  the    scientific  and  fruitful 
study  of  the  Bible.     As  a  means  to  this  result  it  seeks 
to  furnish  all  necessary  preliminary  information. 
(1).  As  to  the  Bible  itself. 

(a).  The  origin  of  its  several  parts.     Who  wrote  these 

books?      When?     Where?      For  what  purpose? 

ip).  Their  organization  into  a  Canon.     When?     By 

whom?     By  what  standard? 
(c).  The  subject  matter. 

(a).  As  to  form; — history,  poetry,  prophecy,  etc. 
{b).  As  to  substance.     What  truths? 
(d).  Its  claims  and  character. 

(e).  Its   general  history.     The    means  of  its    preser- 
vation; its  spread;  its  position  and  influence. 
(2).  As  to  the  best  facilities  for  its  study. 
(3.)  As  to  the  qualifications  needed  for  this  study. 
{a).  Good  general  scholarship. 
{b).  Spiritual  earnestness, 
(c).  Teachableness. 

(d).  Breadth  of  intellectual  sympathy. 
(e).  Faith,  or  spiritual  receptivity. 


4  Syllabus  of  Lectures. 

3.  Organization  of  the  Subject. 

It  treats  of  the  origin,  preservation  and  interpretation 
of  the  Bible. 
(1).  Its  origin. 

{a).  Its  human  origin. 

(a).  As  to  individual  books. 
[b).  Their  organization  into  a  canon. 
[b).  Its  divine  origin. 
{a).  The  fact. 
\b).  The  mode. 
(2).  Its  preservation. 

[a).  The  manner  or  means  of  its  preservation. 
{b).  The  result — Has  it  been  preserved  with  substan- 
tial accuracy? 
(3).  Its  interpretation. 

(a).  The  history  of  interpretation. 

{b).  Principles  and  laws  of  interpretation. 

(c).    Helps  and  accessories  in  interpretation. 


11. 

Claims  of  the  Bible. 

These  are  based  upon — 
1.  Its  Antiquity. 

The  oldest  Biblical  books  date  about  1500  B.  C;  the 
youngest  about  100  A.  D.  And  these  earliest  books  are 
historical  and  so  look  back  to  an  antiquity  much  beyond 
themselves.  Besides  they  contain  fragments  of  more 
ancient  literature.  An  example  of  this  is  the  Song  of 
Lamech,  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Genesis. 

But  this  antiquity  can  be  best  judged  of  by  comparison: 
(1).  With  Greek  literature.     Here  Homer  is   the   old- 
est author,  and  his  date  is  from  800  to  1000  B.  C. 
The  best  known  Attic  writers,  such  as  Plato,  Xen- 
ophon,  Demosthenes,  etc.,   were  contemporaneous 


Syllabus  of  Lecturen. 


with  the  latest  Old  Testament  writers.  Herodo- 
tus, "the  father  of  history,"  is  more  than  a  thou- 
sand years  younger  than  Moses. 

(2).  With  Latin  literature.  The  best  known  and  most 
influential  writers  in  the  Latin  language,  Caesar, 
Cicero,  Virgil,  Horace,  Livy,  and  Tacitus  lived  near 
the  time  of  Christ. 

(3).  With  Hindoo  literature.  Here  the  Vedas  are  the 
most  ancient.  They  are  1,028  in  number,  and  as 
early  as  600  B.  C.  their  verses,  words  and  syllables 
had  been  carefully  enumerated.  Max  Muller  esti- 
mates that  "  as  far  as  our  knowledge  goes  at  pres- 
ent we  are  perfectly  justified  in  referring  them  to 
the  tenth  or  twelfth  centui-y  before  our  era." — 
Cont.  Review,  A2)ril,  1870. 

(4).  With  Chinese  literature.  The  third  book  of  the 
Chinese  Classics,  called  the  Book  of  Odes,  is 
regarded  as  most  ancient.  No  absolute  date  can 
be  given  for  it,  but  the  most  competent  judges 
believe  that  it  probably  goes  back  fully  1000  years 
B.  C.  It  seems  to  stand  in  the  same  general  rank 
with  the  Vedas  and  the  Davidic  Psalms. 

2.  Its  History. 

(1).  It  has  held  a  central  place  in  literature. 
(a).  It  has  increased  its  quantity. 

{a).  By  multiplying  copies  of  itself.    Fully  150,000,- 
000    Bibles  now  in  existence — one  for  every 
ten  of  the  earth's  inhabitants. 
{b).  Other  books  directly  created:  More  than  60,- 
000   commentaries.      Fully   150,000  Christian 
hymns.     Copies  of  some  of  these  have  been 
multiplied  literally  by  the  million, 
(c).    Still  others  indirectly  produced. 
{b).  It  has  improved  its  quality.     The  great  master- 
pieces   of    modern     literature    were     evidently 


6  Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


born  of  the  Bible.      Dante,  Milton  and   Shakes- 
speare  will  serve  as  illustrations  of  this. 

(2).  It  has  stood  in  the  center  of  the  highest  civiliza- 
tion. Of  this  there  are  two  tests  or  standards, 
namely,  the  family  and  the  individual  man.  That 
civilization  is  best  which  gives  the  best  homes  and 
the  noblest  characters. 

(3).  It  is  associated  with  the  best  philosophy, 

(4).  And  with  the   most  beneficent  and   most  spiritual 
religion . 
3.  Its  Contents. 

(1).  Their  literary  excellence. 

(2).  The  dignity  of  the  themes. 

(3).  Their  relation  to  human  interest. 

(4).  Their  manifest  divinity.  The  Bible  claims  to  be 
the  Book  of  God.  If  this  claim  is  made  good 
everything  is  involved  in  it. 


III. 
Editorial  Changes,  Modifications  and  Additions. 

i.  As  to  the  Text. 

{a).  Hebrew  vowel   points  and   accents — 6th  to  10th 

centuries. 
[b).  Greek  breathings  and  accents — 7th  and  8th  cen- 
turies, 
(c).    Greek  punctuation — complete  in  10th  century. 
(d).  Word- separation — 5th  century. 
2.  B(/  Way  of  Ari'angement. 

(1).  Of  the  Old  Testament  Books. 

{a).  Originally  in  three  divisions — Law.,  Prophets., 
Writings.  Traces  of  this  three-fold  division  are 
found  in  the  Apochrypha,  Philo.,  Josephus,  and 
the  New  Testament  (Luke  24:44),  and  it  is  pre- 
served in  the  ordinary  copies  of  the  Hebrew  ss. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


(6).  Josephus,  in  his  epistle  against  Apion,  mentions 
five  books  of  the  X^m/j,  thirteen  of  the  Prophets., 
and  four  of  the  Writings.  These  last  were  Psa., 
Prov.,  Eccl.  and  Cant. 

(c).  In  the  common,  known  also  as  the  Masoretic  plan 
of  division,  the  following  books  also  stand  in  this 
third  division — Ruth,  Chron.,  Ezra,  Neh.,  Esther, 
Job,  Lam.  and  Dan.  This  plan  of  division  then 
is  as  follow^s: 


Law 


f  Gen. 
I   Ex. 
{   Lev. 
I    Num. 
l^  Deut. 


Former. 


ProDliets.  \ 

I 


I  Later. 


I 


Josh. 

Judg. 

Sam. 

[  Kings. 

Greater. 


Lesser. 


I 


Isa. 

Jer. 

Ezek. 

Hose  a. 

Joel. 

"]    Amos. 

[  Obad. 


j; 


Jonah.  Zeph. 

Micah.  Haggai. 

Hab.  Zach. 

Nah.  Malachi 


Writings.— Ruth,  Chron.,  Ezra,  Neh.,  Esther,  Job,  Psa.,  Prov., 
Eccl.,  Cant.,  Lam.  and  Dan. 

{cT).  The  Septuagint  obliterates  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  Prophets  and  the  Writings,  inter- 
sperses the  Apochryphal  books,  and  places  the 
Lesser  Prophets  before  the  Greater. 

(e).  In  the  Vulgate  the  same  order  is  preserved 
except  that  the  Greater  Prophets  are  again  made 
to  precede  the  Lesser. 

(/).  The  English  Version  follows  the  same  order 
but  omits  the  Apochryphal  books. 


Syllables  of  Lectures. 


(2).  Of  the  New  Testament  Books. 

(a).  The  Gospels  and  Acts  usually  come  first  and  in 
their  present  order.  This  probably  indicates  the 
relative  age  of  the  Gospels. 

{h).  Following  Acts  the  Eastern  Church  placed  first  the 
Catholic  epistles,  then  the  Pauline^  the  Western 
Church  placed  first  thePauline  then  the  Catholic. 

(c).  Of  the  Pauline  epistles  both  divisions  of  the 
church  agreed  in  placing  first  those  addressed  (in 
the  order  of  their  importance)  to  churches;  then 
those  addressed  to  individuals.  The  notable  dif- 
ference, however,  was  as  to  the  book  of  Hebrews^ 
which,  in  the  lists  of  the  Eastern  Church  follows 
Thessalonians,  but  in  those  of  the  Western  Church 
Philemon.  This  probably  indicates  doubt  as  to 
its  Pauline  origin  in  the  Western  Church. 

{d).  The  Apocalypse  has  always  stood  last.  This  is 
in  harmony  with  its  contents,  and  it  was  last 
admitted  into  the  canon. 

3.  By  Way  of  Addition. 

(1).  Superscriptions,  or  Titles, 
(a).  Of  Books. 

For  the  most  part  these  must  be  set  down  as  of 
editorial  origin.  Those  of  the  Pentateuch  cer- 
tainly originated  as  late  as  285  B.  C.  Those  of 
the  Gospels  took  their  present  form  in  the  2d 
century. 
{b).  Of  Psalms. 

These  are  certainly  older  than  the   Septuagint, 
and  may  be  original. 
(2).  Subscriptions  of  Paul's  epistles.     Originated  in  5th 
century. 

4.  By  Way  of  Division. 

(1)    Paragraphs. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  9 

{a).  Ammonian  sections  of  the  Gos[)els — 3d  century. 

(/>).  Eusebian  canons — 4th  century. 

(c).    Parshioth  or  Paragraphs  of  t}ie  Pentateuch. 

The   54  Greater  P.  originated  as  early  as  the  3d 
century    A.    D.,  the    G09  Lesser    P.    originated 
somewhat  earlier. 
{d).  The  Haphtaroth  of  the  Prophets  may  have  been 
equally  early. 
(2).   Chapters. 

The    present   chapter-division    made    by   Cardinal 
Hugo,  A.  D.  1248. 
(3).    Verses. 

{a).  Of  the   Old  Testament  made   by  the   Masoretes 

from  600  to  900  A.  D. 
(h).  Of  New   Testament  made   by  Robert  Stephens. 
First  used  in  1551. 


ORIGIN. 


IV. 

Original  Languages  op  Scripture. 
A.  Of  the  Old  Testament. 
1.  Names. 

Jews' language — Isa.  36:  11,13;  Neh. 


(1).  Biblical    \        13:  24. 

Language  of  Canaan — Isa.  19:  18. 

(2).  Extra-Biblical — Hebrew.     (In  the  New  Testament 

this  term  is  applied  to  the  Aramaean). 
Classification. — An    Oriental  language    of   the   Shem- 
itic  family.     The  three  great  divisions  of  this  family 


10  Syllabus  of  Lectures. 

(1).  The  Armaean. 

Two    dialects — the    Chaldean    and    the    Syriac — 
spoken  mainly  to  the  north  and  east  of  Palestine. 
The  literature  of  the  Chaldee  is: 

(a).  Certain  fragments  of  the  canonical  books — Dan. 
2:  14—7:  28.     Ez.  4:  8-16;  7:12-26. 

if)).  The  Targums. 

(c).  The  Talmud. 

{d).  The  Masora. 
(2).  The  Hebrew. 

Spoken  only  in  Palestine.     Literature  limited  to  the 

Old  Testament. 
(3).  The  Arabic. 

Spoken  to  the  South  and  east  of  Palestine.     Since 

widely  diflfused.     Abundant  literature. 

3.  Relative  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew. 

(«).  The   mother-speech  of  man  cannot  be  identified 

with  any  extant  language. 
(6).  But  the  Hebrew  is  entitled  to  special  respect  on 
the  score  of  antiquity. 
{a).  Its  literature  is  old. 
(5).  Alphabetic  writing  originated  here. 
(c).  Most  direct  line  of  development  from  the  prim- 
itive and  normal  life  of  man. 

4.  Characteristics. 

(c/).  Exclusively  consonantal  roots. 
(^).  Shades  of  meaning  by  vowels, 
(c).  Marked  grammatical  peculiarities: — 

{a).  No  case-endings. 

{f>).  Only  two  genders — those  of  life. 

(c).  Two  tenses — past  and  future. 

(c^).  Genitive  and  accusative  pronouns  suffixed. 

5.  Apparatus  for  its  study. 

{ci).  Lexicons — Gesenius,  Fuersts,  Davies. 
(6).  Grammars — Gesenius,  Ewald,  Green,  etc. 
(c).  Concordances,  Fuersts,  Eng.,  Heb.  Con.,  etc. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  11 

B.  Of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  Name — Hellenistic  Greek. 

This  means  Hebraistic  Greek.  This  dialect  of  the 
Greek  is  found  in  ths  Septuagint,  Josephus,  and  the 
the  New  Testament. 

2.  Character.     Three  elements: — 

{a).  The  Greek  element.     This  is  in   the  form  of  the 

common  dialect. 
{b).  The  Hebrew  element.     This  modifies  the  Greek 
so  as  to  cause  some  peculiarities: — 
(a).  As  to  expression — vividness. 

Pregnant  metaphors    as  "  edify,"  prepositions 
as  well  as  case-endings,  etc.,  etc. 
ip).  As  to  construction — simplicity. 

There  are    few   participles  and    the  sentences 
are  co-ordinate, 
(c).  The  Christian  element. 

This    consists    largely    in  the    new    meanings 
given  to  words. 

3.  Apparatus  for  its  study. 

{a.)  Lexicons — Robinson,  Cremar. 
{b).  Grammars — Winer,  Buttman. 
(c.)  Concordances — Bruder's,  Schmidt,  Hudson,  Eng- 
lishman's. 

V. 

Origin  of  Individual  Books. 

(The  vital  germ  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  the  Penta- 
teuch; of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  Gospels.     In  treat- 
ing, then,  of  the  origin  of   the  books,  it  will  best  serve 
the  purpose  of  this  course  of  lectures  to  limit  our  inquiry 
to  these  two  divisions.) 
A.  The  Pentateuch. 
I.  General  view. 
1.  Names. 


12  Syllabus  of  Lectures. 

(1).  In  the  Bible  itself. 

"  Book  of  the  Law  of  God  "— "  of  Jehovah  "— "  of 
Moses  ",  etc.,  etc. 
(2).  Among    the    Jews.       "  The    Five-Fifths    of   the 
Law."    Each  book  called  by  first  important  word. 
(3).  Among    the    Christians.     "  Pentateuch "   origin- 
ated with  the  early  Greek  Fathers. 
The  present  names  of  the  books  are  of  comparatively 
late  origin — as  late  as  285  B.  C. 

2.  Forms.  Havernick  and  others  regard  the  present 
five-fold  form  as  editorial;  Keil  and  Bleek  think  it 
original.     This  is  the  true  view. 

3.  Plan.     (Lange.) 

Genesis — Preparation  for  the  Theocracy. 
Exodus — Founding  of  the  Theocracy. 
Leviticus — Legislation  for  the  Theocracy. 
Numbers — Later  history  and  legislation. 
Deuteronomy — Supplementary  and  final. 
II.  Its  origin  and  authorship. 

Is  it  a  genuine  product  of  the  period  of  the  Exodus 
and  was  Moses  its  author?     If  so,  of  course  editorial  addi- 
tions and  modifications  must  be  admitted. 
1.  Affirmative. 

(1).  This    the    unanimous    belief  of  the  Jews   them- 
selves.  No  trace  of  doubt  until  the  11th  century. 
(2).  And    of    Christians.     Most   of  the    questionings 

have  arisen  within  the  last  100  years. 
(3.)  Some  ancient  heathen  testimonies.     (See  Rawlin- 

son's  "Historical  Evidences.") 
(4).  For    certain     most    important    passages    Mosaic 
authorship  is  claimed. 
Ex.  17:14,  24-47;  Num.  33:2. 
Deut.  31:  9-11,  24-26,  j    Deut.  29: 19,  20,  27. 
compare  with  (    Deut.  17:18,  19. 

(5).  This  the  testimony  of  the  later  Scriptural  books. 
{a).  By  using  the  name  of  Moses  with  the  Law. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  13 

{b).  By   implicating    the    time    of    Moses    as    the 

period  of  its  origin, 
(c).  By  assuming  an  acquaintance  with  the  things 
which  the  Pentateuch  contains. 
(6).  Much  corroborative  internal  evidence. 
{a).  Its  grand  archaic  character. 

{a).  Shown  to  some  extent  even  in  the  language. 
(b).  And  especially  in  the  subject  matter. 
(6).  The  author  was  acquainted  with  Egypt,  Gen. 
40:16,40:11,41:14,  44:5,  50:^3,  26;  Ex. 
2:3;  Deut.  10:10,  11. 
(c).  And  with  the  Sinaitic  peninsula. 
{d).  He  was  a  Hebrew. 
(e).  He  was  familiar  with  shepherd  life. 
(/'.)  The  whole  falls  into  perfect  unity. 
2.  Difficulties  and  objections. 

(1).  "  Pentateuch  seems  to  be  made  up  of  pre-exist- 
ing documents." 

Ans. — It  doubtless  contains  such  but    is  not 
made  up  of  them. 
(2).  "  The  literary  excellence  of  the  work,  too    high 
for  the  time  of  Moses." 
Ans. 
(a).  Of  this  we  are  not   fully  qualified  to  judge. 

Egypt  the  literary  center  of  the  world. 
(b).  But  the  kind  of  literary  excellence  shown  falls 
in  with  the  theory  of  Mosaic  authorship.     It  is 
simple  and  majestic;  not  elaborate  and  ornate. 
(3).  "  It  lacks  unity." 

A)is.    The  more  thoroughly  the  facts  are  examined 
the  less  ground  does  there  seem  to  be  for  this  objec- 
tion. 
(4).  "  There  are  traces  of  an  age  later  than  Moses. 
(a).  In  the  use  of  certain  proper  names.  Gen,  23:2, 
compare  with  Josh.  14:  15,  etc.    Gen.  14:14com- 
Josh.  19:47,  etc. 


14  Syllabxis  of  Lectures. 

(6).  In  certain   historical  and    antiquarian    allusions. 
Gen.  12:6;    Ex.  16:  36;    Gen.  19:37;    Deut.  3:  5, 
9,  11;  Gen.  36:31." 
Ans.    In  some  instances  the  facts  have  been  imper- 
fectly considered.     {E.  </.,  as  to  the  names  Hebron 
and    Dan  ;)    in    others  the  explanation    is    apparent 
("  unto    this    day "),    and  in    others    there    may    be 
editorial  observations  inserted. 
(5).  "  Indications  that  it  was  written  in  Palestine.    The 
term  '  sea'  is  used  for  west:Gen.  12:  8;    Ex.  26:  22, 
and  'beyond  Jordan'  in  the  sense  of  'east  of  Jor- 
dan.' "     Gen.  50: 11;  Num.  22:  1. 

Alls.  These  are  apparent  and  not  real.  The  term 
for  west  doubtless  originated  in  a  maritime  region. 
"  Beyond   Jordan "     is    also  used    in  the   opposite 
sense. 
(6).  "  Such  mention  of   Moses  as  he  would  not  make. 
He    is  spoken  of   in  the  third  person,    is   strongly 
commended  (Num.  22:  3),  and  his  death  is  narrated." 
An'i.  Of  course  there  is,  in  this  last,  evidence  of  a 
later  hand,  and  possibly,  also,  in  the  passage  in  Num. 
12:3. 
(7).  "  The    earlier    portion    of   the    Pentateuch    has    a 
mythical  and  legendary  aspect." 

Ans.  We  should  not  be  in  haste  to  pronounce  a 
passage  unhistorical  without  very  convincing  proof. 
But  this  history  is,  in  many  ways,  corroborated. 
(8).  "  There  are  some  moral  and  religious  difficulties. 
Sin  had  a  mechanical  origin;  deception  is  approved; 
no  doctrine  of  immortality;  religion  a  partial,  out- 
ward and  selfish  thing" 

Ans.  This  objection  jt?eryerte  the  history. 
B.  The  Gospel. 
I.  The  Problem. 

1.  As  to  subject-matter. 
(1).  Character  of  Christ. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  15 


(2).  Teachings    of   Christ.      These   are   very   radical 
and  original. 

{a).  Sets  forth  the   essential  rather  than   the  acci- 
dental. 

{b).  Pronounces  blessing  on  sorrow. 

(c).  Gives  the  heart  the  first  place. 

{d).  Golden  rule. 

(e).   Lord'sprayer. 
(3).  Miracles  of  Christ. 

[a).  Considered  as  wonders. 

(b).  Considered  as  signs  and  revelations. 
(4).  History  of  Christ  most  unique. 
(5).  Circumstantiality  of  details. 

2.  As  to  form. 

Two  classes  of  phenomena,  resemblances  and 
divergences.  Tables  have  been  constructed  to 
illustrate  these.  Those  below  are  from  Norton 
and  Westcott. 

TABLE    FIRST. 

Let  the  contents  of  each  book  equal  100.  Then 
the  peculiarities  and  concordances  are: 

Pecul.       Con. 
Mark.  7  93  =  100 

John.  92  8  =  100 

Matthew.       42  58  =  100 

Luke.  59  41  =  100 

TABLE  SECOND — Concoi'dances. 

Let  all  these  be  100.     Then  there  will  be: 

Common  to  Matt.,  Mnrk  and  Luke 53 

Common  to  Matt,  and  Luke 21 

Common  to  Matt,  and  Mark 20 

Common  to  Mark  and  Luke 6 


100 


16  Syllabus  of  Lectures. 

TABLE    THIRD. 

Relation  of  General  to  Verbal  Concordances: 
Matt.  27  to  7,  ^  of  the  latter  being  in  the  recitative 

portions. 
Mark  29  to  7,  4  of  the  latter  being  in  the  recitative 

portions. 
Luke  4  to  1,  W   being  in   the   recitative  portions. 

II.  The  Solution. 

1.  Theories  of  unbelief. 
(1).  That  of  imposture. 

(a).  Entirely  unsupported. 

(6).    Inadequate.       Does    not     explain    the    phe- 
nomena. 

(c).    History  of  the  church  refutes  it. 
(2).  The  mythical  theory. 

{a).  Falls  out  with  the  style  of  the  Gospels. 

(^).    Does  not  account  for  a  suffering  and  crucified 
Messiah. 

(c).   Nor  for  the  existence  of  the  church. 

{d).  Nor  for  the  place  of  the  Gospels  in  literature. 

(e).    Nor  for  the  testimonies  to  Christ  in  general 
history. 

(/).  Nor  for   the  phenomena  of  the   gospels  as  to 
form. 

(^).    Finally,  no  time  for  the  formation  of  myths. 

2.  Theories  of  faith. 

(1).  That  of  interdependence. 

{ci).  All   possible    arrangements    of    the    synoptic 
Gospels  have  been  proposed.     This  shows  that 
no  order  of  composition  is  clearly  evident. 
if)).  And  this  does   not  account  for  independence 
in  language. 
(2).  That  of  a  common  written  origin. 
(«.)  No  proof  of  such  document. 
(5).    How  could  it  have  been  lost? 


Syllahiis  of  Lectures.  17 

(c).    This  inconsistent  with  the  remarkable  diversity 
in  language. 
(3).  A  common  oral  source. 

(a).  Such  an  oral  Gospel  must  have  existed. 

{b).   This  the  common  sense  of  the  term  Gospel  in 

the  New  Testament, 
(c).    This  accounts  for  the  phenomena: 
[a).  The  resemblance 
ip).    And  the  diversity. 


VI. 

The  CANOisr. 

The  term  is  derived  from  the  Greek  karoov — a  straight 
rod;  hence  a  measuring  rod;  and  then  a  standard,  whether 
in    literature    or    religion.       Iren^us,   Bishop    of    Lyons 
(2d  century),  was  the  first  to  use  the  term  in  this  way. 
A.  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 
1.  Basis,  or  test  of  canonicity. 
Two  theories. 
(1).  That  the  design  was  secular — to  form  a  collec- 
tion of  national  writings. 
(2).  That  it    was    religious,    books     being    admitted 
because  they  were  believed  to  be  from  God  in 
some  special  sense. 
That  the  latter  is  historically  correct  is  proved: 
(a).  By    the  Apochryphal    books,  which   speak  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  "  holy  books," 
"dictated   by    God,"  etc.,    etc.     1    Mac.    2:9; 
2  Mac.  6:  23,  etc. 
{b).  Philo.  refers   to  the   canonical    books   as  holy 
and  authoritative,  but  never  does  he  so  refer  to 
the  Apochryphal  books, 
(c).  Josephus  speaks  of  these  books  as  divine,  and 
says  this  "  feeling  is  engendered  in  the  mind  of 


18  Sylh'lnis  of  Lectures. 

every  Jew  from  his  earliest  childhood."     (Con- 
tra Cepion,  1.  8). 
{d).  Christ  charges    the  Pharisees  with  "  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men." 
2.  Contents  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon. 

(1).  Book    of   Wisdom    (B.C.    130),    mentions  "the 

Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  books." 
(2).  Philo    mentions    the    same  three-fold    classifica- 
tion "  laws,  oracles  spoken  by  the  prophets,  and 
hymns  and  the  others." 
(3).  Josephus    says:     "We  have  22    books,    namely, 
five  of  the  Law,  thirteen  of  the  Prophets,  and  four 
of  the  Writings."   As  nearly  the  same  enumeration 
is  found  in  certain  later  Jewish  catalogues  which 
beyond  question  comprehend  all  the  books  of  the 
accepted  canon,  the  belief  is  warranted  that  this 
enumeration  of  Josephus  comprehends  the  same. 
Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles  are  each  one  book; 
the  twelve  minor  Prophets  were  counted  as  one; 
Lamentations  was    counted  with  Jeremiah,  and, 
possibly,  Nehemiah  and  Esther  with  Ezra. 
[d).  Christ,  in  Luke  21:44,  mentions  the  same  clas- 
sification. 
(e).  Such  Christian  Fathers  as  Melito  (2d  century), 
Origen  (.Sd  century)  and  Jerome  (4th  century), 
give,  substantially,  our  present  list. 
(/).  The  later  Jewish  authorities,  the  Talmud  and 
the     Masoretes,  bear    witness  to    our   present 
accepted  canon, 
(r/).  The  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  into  the 
^  the    New  Testament  not  only  show  that  Christ 

and  his  apostles  used  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  authoritative  and  inspired;  but,  in 
great  measure,  they  serve  to  identify  the  books. 
Their  testimony  is  most  important  as  to  the 
character  and  contents  of  the  Old    Testament 


Syllahus  of  Lectures.  1 9 

Canon.     Some  of   the  signilicant  facts  of  this 
subject  are: 

(a).  Whole    number  of    quotations    and    allusions  l/^ 
more  than  600. 

(h).  All  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which,  as 
to  their  subject  matter,  are  nearly  akin  to  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  are  quoted  or  t/* 
alluded  to.  If  any,  such  as  Ecclesiastes  or  Can- 
ticles, are  not  quoted,  tlie  reason  is  apparent  in 
the  character  of  the  book. 

(c).  The  Apochryphal  books  are  never  thus  quoted 
or  referred  to. 

{d.)  The  Pentateuch,  Psalms,  and  Isaiah  are  most 
abundantly  quoted.  As  these  fall  into  different 
divisions  of  the  old  Testament,  this  fact  indicates 
that  each  of  these  divisions,  the  Law,  the 
Prophets  and  the  Writings,  was  held  to  be  alike 
inspired, 

[Note. — The  source  of  confusion  on  this  subject  seems 
to  have  been  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  version,  in  which 
the  Canonical  and  Apochryphal  books  were  mingled  with- 
out distinction.  Augustine  (355-430),  who  was  more  of 
a  theologian  than  a  scholar,  seems  to  have  been  culpablv 
loose  in  his  treatment  of  these.) 

B.  The  New  Testament  canon. 
1.  Tests  by  which  made  up. 

(1).  Apostolic  authorship  and  authority. 

(a).  Direct.  Two  of  the  Gospels,  all  of  the  Epis- 
tles and  the  Apocalypse. 
ip).  Indirect.  Mark,  Luke  and  Acts.  Mark  gives 
the  Petrine  Gospel  as  Papias  in  the  2d  century 
records  the  tradition  of  the  church  to  be.  Luke 
gives  the  Pauline  Gospel,  and,  too,  there  seems 
to  be  an  indirect  authoritative  character  in  the 
book  of  Acts. 


20  Syllabus  of  Lectures. 

(2).  Involved  in  this  was  insjDiration.  2  Peter  3:15, 
16,  proves  that  these  books  even  then  had  come 
up  to  the  level  of  the  Old  Testament.  Justin 
Martyr  (Apol.  1:  67)  speaks  of  Christians  as  "  be- 
lieving on  the  voice  of  God  addressed  to  them  by 
the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  whose  writings  are 
read  each  Sunday  in  the  public  assembly,"  etc. 

(3).  In  some  cases  the  book  itself  seems  to  put  forth 
a  claim  to  authorit3^ 

Paul's  epistles  have  an  official  character — "  Paul 
the  Apostle."  Sometimes  he  assumes  the  author- 
ity of  his  own  epistles — 2  Thess.  3: 14.  The  epis- 
tles of  James,  Peter  and  Jude  contain  the  same 
implication  of  Apostolic  character. 

2.  Contents. 

These  may  be  best  considered  under  the  two 
heads  given  by  Eusebius  (A.  D.  270-340),  namely: 
Homologoumena,  or  books  universally  acknowl- 
edged, and  Antilegomena,  or  books  disputed. 

(1).  Homologoumena — Books  acknowledged.     These 
are  the  Gospels,  Acts,  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul 
(Hebrews  omitted),  1  John  and  1  Peter.     Touch- 
ing no  one  of  these  has  there  ever  been  any  mate- 
rial difference  of  opinion.      They  have  been  ac- 
cepted uniformly  and  unanimously  by  the  general 
church. 
{a).  First  century  witnesses.     These  are  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers  and    certain    expressions  which 
occur  in  the    canonical  books  themselves.  2 
Peter    3: 15,  16,  shows   that   the    idea   of   the 
canon,  which  was  originally  limited  to  the  Old 
Testament,  had  become  extended  so  as  to  in- 
clude   other    books.     The  evidence  given  by 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  is  in  the  form  of  coinci- 
dences in  language  and  not  formal  quotations. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  21 

There  is  nothing  against  any  of   these  books 
directly    or    by  implication,  by  omission     or 
repudiation. 
ih).  Second  century  witnesses. 

{a).  Muratorian  canon  (cir.  160-170  A.  D.).  The 
oldest  list  of  New  Testament  books.  It  is 
somewhat  mutilated.  There  is  no  perfect 
copy  extant.  It  gives  testimony  to  all  these 
books.  Though  Matthew  and  Mark  are 
wanting,  yet  Luke  is  called  the  third  Gos- 
pel and  John  the  fourth. 

(b).  The  Peshito — Syriac  New  Testament  (2d 
century).  This  version  contains  all  these 
books. 

(c).  The  Old  Italic  Version  (2d  century)  con- 
tained all  the  Homologoumena. 

[d).  Justin  Martyr  (8.  165).  He  mentions  the 
Gospels,  which  he  calls  the  "memoirs  of  the 
Apostles,"  and  shows  acquaintance,  by  inci- 
dental allusions,  with  all  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  except- Philemon,  Titus,  and 
the  Catholic  epistles.  Of  course  it  is  not  to 
be  inferred  that  he  did  not  know  these. 

{e).  Papias  (140-150),  Bishop  of  Hierapolis, 
speaks  of  two  Gospels — "the  first  written 
by  Matthew,"  and  the  second,  "  according 
to  the  elders,  Mark  wrote  as  he  received 
it  from  Peter." 

(/).  Irenreus,  Bishop  of  Lyons  (130-200). 

He  mentions  the  four  gospels  and  ascribes 
them  to  those  whose  names  they  bear.  He 
quotes,  as  Scripture.,  Acts,  twelve  epistles  of 
Paul  (omittiiig  Philemon),  1st  Peter,  1st  and 
2d  John  and  the  Apocalypse. 


22  Syllahns  of  Lectures. 

(g).  Tertullian  (150-220)  refers  to  the  four  Gos- 
pels, Acts,  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul,  1st 
Peter,  1st  John,  Jude  and  the  Apocalypse. 
(A).  Clement  of  Alexandria  (165-220).  He 
quotes  four  Gospels,  Acts,  all  Paul's  epis- 
tles except  Philemon,  1st  Peter,  1st  John, 
Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse, 
(c).    Third  century  witnesses. 

In  this  century  we  have  several  lists,  two  of 
which  seem  intended  to  be  complete.  There 
were  about  forty  writers  whose  works  are  still 
extant  in  whole  or  in  part.  Among  these 
were  Cyprian,  Dion^^esius,  Origen,  etc.  The 
sum  of  their  testimony  indicates  practical  una- 
nimity as  to  this  part  of  the  canon. 
(d).  Fourth  century  witnesses. 

There  are  about  ten  catalogues  of  this  century, 
and  writers  many  and  voluminous.  Among 
these  are  Arius,  Athanasius,  Jerome,  Euse- 
bius  and  Augustine.  All  agree  on  these 
books. 
2.  The  Antilegomena — Books  disputed. 

These  are  James,  2d  Peter,  2d   and   3d  John,  Jude 
Hebrews   and  Revelations.     Touching  these  it  may 
be  observed — 
(1).  The  doubts    respecting    them    turned    on    their 

genuineness. 
(2).  The   evidence    against   them    is    mainly  that   of 

omission;  not  of  repudiation. 
(3).  Some  more  definite  statements  may  help  to  indi- 
cate more  exactly  the  state  of  the  question  as  to 
particular  books. 
(a).    The  evidence  for  Hebrews  is  most  nearly  per- 
fect.    Out    of    twenty-eight    lists    preserved 
from  the  early  church,  there  are  but  two  from 
which  it   is   certainly  omitted.     All   the  Con- 


Syllahus  of  Lectures. 


%\ 


ciliar  and  Oriental  catalogues  contain  it. 
Doubts  seem  to  have  been  limited  mainly  to 
the  Western  church;  hence  its  place  in  our 
Bible. 

(//).  The  Apocalypse  was  latest  in  gaining  an 
assured  place  in  the  canon.  But  it  stands  in 
a  majority  of  the  lists,  and  (which  is  especially 
important  in  such  a  matter)  in  lists  and  litera- 
ture representing  every  section  of  the  church 
— Palestine,  Constantinople,  Syria,  Italy  and 
Spain.  Among  those  who  give  evidence  in 
its  favor  are  Justin  Martyr,  Irenteus,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Tertullian,  Jerome,  etc. 

(c).  The  case  is  similar  as  to  the  smaller  books. 
Out  of  twenty-eight  lists  tabulated  by  West- 
cott  they  appear  in  about  twenty.  There  are 
few  expressions  of  doubt;  the  main  evidence 
against  them  is  that  of  omission. 

VII. 

Thd  Divine  OriCtIN  of  the  Bible. 

Preliminary. 

1.  Three  great  issues  between  Naturalism  and  Super- 
naturalism: 

(a).  As  to  the  Divine  Man— Jesus  Christ. 

(i).  As  to  the  Divine  Book— the  Bible. 

(c).  As  to  the  Divine  Work— spiritual  character. 

2.  Things  assumed  in  this  inquiry, 
(a).  The  genuineness  of  the  Bible. 
(/>).  The  authenticity  of  the  Bible, 
(c).  The  correctness  of  the  Canon. 

3.  Elements  to  be  eliminated  from  this  inquiry. 

All  editorial  and  mechanical  modifications  subse- 
quent to  the  completion  of  the  several  books.  (See 
lecture  III.) 


24  SyllahMS  of  Lectures. 

I.  The  idea  of  inspiration. 

1.  That  the  Bible  contains  God. 

2.  That  the  books  of  Scripture  were  originated  under 
an  extraordinary  influence  of  God's  Spirit. 

(«).  This  to  be  distinguished  from  all  forms  of  merely 
human  inspiration. 

{b).  From  the  common  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon 
all  good  men. 

(c).  And  from  its  richer  influence  upon  sacred  exer- 
cises and  offices. 

{d.)  Best  seen  and  understood  in  the  inspiration  which 
came  upon  Prophets  and  Apostles. 

II.  The  fact  of  inspiration. 

1.  The  Subject  of  the  Bible,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is 
divine. 

{a).  Shown  by  his  relation  to  Old  Testament  Prophecy. 

ip).  By  his  strange  and  unique  career. 

(c.)   By  the  unaccountable  originality  of  his  sayings. 

{(l).  By  the  perfection  of  his  character. 

(e).  By  his  miracles. 

[f).  By  his  assumption  of  divine  prerogatives. 

2.  Its  influence  is  divine — supporting,  elevating,  sancti- 
fying. 

3.  Its  authors  were  inspired  men. 
(«).  Prophets. 

ip).  Apostles. 

4.  It  exhibits  such  phenomena  as  might  be  looked  for 
in  an  inspired  book. 

{n).  Supernatural  revelations. 

{b).  Predictions  of  future  events. 

(c).   Wondrous  power  of  searching  the  heart. 

5.  Borne  witness  to  by  (Jhrist  and  His  Apostles.    Matt. 
1:22,2:15,22:43;  John]2:40;  Acts  28:  25. 

6.  Definite  claim  of  Scripture. 

(   \    n    4.  1         ^    \  '"''The  Scriptures." 

(«).  By  terms  employed,-}  aThe^„;yScriptares",etc. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  25 

(b).  As  synonymous  with  its  Divine  Author. 
Gen.  12:1-3         =         Gal.  3:8. 
Ex.  9: 16  =  Rom.  9:17. 

Psalms  95:7,  8,  ==         Heb.  3:7. 
(c).  By  direct  assertion. 
2  Tim.  3:16. 
2  Peter  1:21. 
2  Peter  3:16. 
7.  This  the  uniform  Faith  of  Catholic  Church, 
See  Westcott's  Introduction  to  Gospels — Ap.  B., 
Or  Lee  on  Inspiration — Ap.  G. 

Objections  and  difficulties. 

1.  Inspiration   unnecessary  to  account  for  much  of  the 
Bible. 

Ans. 

{a).   Are  we  competent  to  decide  this? 

{b).   May  it  not  be  necessary  for   the  histories  of 

the  Bible  with  their  proper  adjustment? 
(c).  Are  not  \hQ^Q  fundamental f 
(d).  Opposed  to  explicit  testimo7iy  of  Scripture. 

2.  ^^Many  things  too  trivial.'''' 
Ans. 

(a).  Things  small  or  great  because  of  their  relations. 

{b).  If  any  human  trait,  why  not  these? 

(c)    Necessary  that  there  be  perfect  humanness. 

{d).  These  may  be  the^ne  liiies  of  the  p>e  feet  picture. 

3.  "7>^  some  cases  inspiration  expressly  disavowed ,  as  in 
1  Cor.  7:10,  12,25." 

Ans.  The  reverse  plainly  true.     Three  cases: 
{a).  That  in  v.  10.     Here  the  Lord  had  spoken. — 

Mat.  19:5. 
(5).  That  in  v.  12  Paul  reverses  the  old  order, 
(c).  That  ill  V.  25  Paul  expresses  an  opinion  as  to 

expedie?icy. 

4.  "  Some  books  mentioned  in  Bible  are  lost.''"' 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


(1).  Old  Testament  Books. 

Book  of  Wars  of  Jehovah.     Num,  21:  14. 
Book  of  Jasher — 2  Sam.  1:  18;  Josh.  10: 13. 
Solomon's  many  books — 2  Chron.  35:25. 
Book  of  Nathan  and  Gad — 2  Chron.  9:  29. 
Book  of  Acts  of  Solomon — 1  Kings  11:  41. 
Book  of  Chronicles  and  Kings — 2  Kings  24:5. 
(2.)  N'eio  Testament  Books. 

Many  lives  of  Christ — Luke  1: 1. 
Epistle  from  Laodicea — Col,  4:  16. 
A?is. 

(a).  Reason  to  think  this  last  is  "  Ephesians." 

(b).  Even  if  we  could  know  (as  we  do  not)  that 

some   of  these   lost   books    were   inspired,  it 

would  not  follow  that    our  present  canon  is 

mutilated.     T'o7\ 

{a).  Some    prophets'    mission  to  their  own  age 

alone, 
(b).  Others,  as  Jonah,  mainli/  so. 
(c).  Many  of  Christ's   acts  and  words  are  lost. 
{d).  Hence  this  in  harmony  with  history. 
5.  "  SS.  contain  mistakes  and  errors.'''' 
Ans. 

{a).  Not  proved. 

[b).  May  not  be  a  fatal  objection  if  proved. 
II.  Theories  of  Inspiration. 
1.  As  to  extent. 

(1).  Par^i'a/inspiration. 

[a).  Assumes  unwarrantable   distinction  in    Scrip- 
ture. 
{b).  Does  not   truthfully  reflect   the    general    con- 
sciousness of  the  Church  on  this  subject, 
(c).  Takes  away  from  the  Bible  its  fitness  as  a  rule 

of  faith. 
{d).  Opposed  to  plain  affirmation  of  Scripture. 


SyllahuH  of  Lectures.  27 

(2).  The  theory  of  def/rees  of  inspiration. 

(a).  (Jan  there  be  degrees  of  inspiration? 

(/>).  No  intimation  of  this  in  Bible  itself. 

(c).  Still  may  help  us  to  conceive    of  the  way  in 
which  books  of  Scripture  were  originated. 
(3).  Plenary  inspiration.     Two  particulars. 

{a).  Whole  Bible  inspired. 

(^).  And  equally  inspired. 
2.  As  to  mode. 

(1).  Rationalistic  theory. 

(rt).  ^o\>real  inspiration. 

(6).  Stands  opposed  by  divine  phenomena. 

(c).  Destroys  Bible  as  a  book  of  religion. 
(2).  Mechanical  theory. 

(a).  Does  not  account  for  human  phenomena. 

{b).  Fatal  to  Bible  as  a  book  of  reli(jio7i. 

(c).  Its  affinities  are  Calmnistic. 
(3).  Dynam^ic   theory.     Writer    dealt  with    not  as  a 
forceless  instrum,ent.,  but  as  a  living  agent. 

(a).  Explains  human  phenomena. 

ip).  And  the  divine  phenomena. 

(c).  Makes  it  a  book  of  religion. 

{d).  And  Divine- Human  like  Christ. 


PRESERVATION. 


VIII. 

The  Bible  Written — Scripture  Manuscripts. 

1.  Materials. 

(1).  Dyed  skins.     (All  synagogue  robes.) 
(2).  Parchment.     (Oldest  extant  MSS.) 
(3).  Cotton  paper.     (From  10th  century.) 
(4).  Linen  paper.     (After  14th  century.) 


28  Syllabus  of  Lectures, 

2.  Numbers. 

(1).  Of  portions  of  Old  Testament  about  1400. 
(2).  Of  portions  of  New  Testament  about  1600. 

3.  Age. 

(1).  Old  Testament  MSS.  from  10th  century  to  printing. 
(2).  New  Testament  MSS.  from  4th  century  to  printing. 

4.  Some  of  the  Most  Important. 

(1).   Codex  Sinaiticus.       (A,) 

{a).  Age — 4th  century. 

(b).    Contents — All  the  New  Testament,  and  much  of 
the  Septuagint,  etc. 

(c).    Character — excellent. 

{(X),  Kept  in  Royal  Library  of  St.  Petersburg. 

(e)     Published  in  fac  sim,ile. 
(2).   (Jodex  Yaticanus.     (B.) 

{a)    Age — 4th  century. 

(b).    Contents — Most  of  Septuagint  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

(c).    Character — Very  excellent. 

{d)  History — Unknown. 

(e).    Kejyt  in  the  Vatican  Library. 

(/").  Published  in  fac  simile. 
(3).   Codex  Alexandrinus.     (A.) 

[a).  Age — 5th  century. 

{b).    Contents — Septuagint  and   most   of  New  Testa- 
ment. 

(c).   History — Presented  to  Charles  I  by  Cyril  Lucas, 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria. 

{d).  Kept  in  British  Museum. 

(e).    Published  m  f(c  si7nile. 

IX. 
Various  Readings. 
1.   Their  Number. 

{a).  Gross  number  in  New  Testament  estimated   at 
120,000. 


Syllahufi  of  Lectures.  29 

(6).    No  doubt  ill  more  than  a  few  hundred  of  places. 
This    includes    all     cases    of    order,    inflection, 
orthography,  etc. 
(c).    Very  few  places  in  which  the  sense  is  affected. 
{d).  Still  fewer  are  of  any  doctrinal  importance. 
'I.   Classified  as  to  their  Orieiin. 

(1).  Accidental.     The   great  majority  are  of  this  class. 
Some  sources  of  mistake  were: 
{a).  Imperfect   sight — Eg.    Rom.    12:11 — Kaipcj — 

KvpiGj. 
(b).   Imperfect   hearing — E.  g.    "  Itacisms."        Rom. 

2:17. 
(c).    Imperfect  Ji^c?(/me/i?. 

(a).  Words  wrongly  divided —1  Cor.  15:10. 
ih).   Abbreviations  mistaken — 1  Tim.  3: 10. 
(c).    Glosses  taken    in  from   margin — Matt.   0:13; 
John  5:3,4. 
(2).  Intentional. 

(Not  always  with  corrupt  motives.) 
{a).  To  remove  difficulties. 

{a).  Of  language — Luke  1:04. 
{b).    Of  history— Matt.  27:9;  John  19:  14. 
(c).    Of  geography — John  1:28. 
{d).  Of  doctrine— Mark  13:  32. 
{b).   To  improve  the  text. 

[a).  Classical  for  Hebraistic  idiom. 

{h).   Fuller     statement   found    in    another     place. 

Acts  9:  5,  0. 
(c).    Liturgical     additions.         Matt.      0:13 — amen 
added  to  some  of  the  books. 
3.  Importance. 

{a).  Do  not  modify  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture. 
[b).    Nor  its  characteristic  and  fundamental  facts, 
(c).    Only  affects  the  lights  and  shades  of  the  picture^ 
and  the  number  of  proof  texts. 


30  Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


4.  Some  of  the  Most  Important  Various  Readings, 

Matt.  (3:13;  11:19;  19:17.  Mark  1:2;  3:29;  16:9-20. 
Luke2:14.  John  1: 18;  5:  3-4;  7:53:  8:11.  Acts 
8:37;  9:5-0;  20:28.  Rom. 5:1;  8:1.  lTim.3:16. 
1  John  2:23;  3:1;  5:7. 

X. 

History  of  the  Printed  Text. 

I.  Hebrew  Old  Testament. 

1.  First  complete  Hebrew  Bible 1488. 

2.  Complutension  Polyglot 1514. 

3.  Buxtorfs  Hebrew  Bible IGll. 

4.  Hebrew  Bible  of  Joseph  Athias 1661. 

(a).  This  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  editions. 

(5).  Van  Der  Hooght's  edition  of  this  text  is  the  pres- 
ent Textus  Receptus  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(c).    Chief  manual  editions  of  this  are  Judah  d'Alle- 

mand's — London 1825. 

Hahn's — Leipsic 1832. 

Theile's— Leipsic 1834. 

Letteris'— New  York 1869. 

I I.  Greek  New  Testament. 

1.  Complutension 1514. 

2.  Erasmian  New  Testament 1516. 

3.  Stephens'  New  Testament 1551. 

4.  Elzevirs'  New  Testament 1624. 

5.  Mills'  New  Testament— Oxford 1707. 

6.  Grissbach's— Halle 1775-1806. 

7.  Lachman's— Berlin   1831-1850. 

8.  Tischendorp's— Leipsic 1840-1869. 

9.  Tregelles' 1844-1872. 

10.  Westcott  &  Hort's 1882. 

III.  Sonne  Leading  Versions.     {First  Editions.) 

Septuagint 1514. 

Syriac  New  Testament 1552. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  81 


TargLims 1482. 

Vulgate 1452. 

German   1462. 

Italian 1471. 

French 1487. 

Spanish 1543. 

Danish 1524. 

English 1525. 

XI. 

Most  Important  Ancient  Verses. 

1.  Septuagint. 

— Hebrew    Old    Testament    into    Greek.       Made    by- 
Alexandrian  Jews  about  285  B.  C. 
— In  common  use  in  Christ's  time. 
— Work  of  unequal  merit.     Pentateuch  excellent. 

2.  Targiwis. 

— Old  Testament  into  Aramaean  (Chaldee).     This  had 

come  to  be  the  Jews'  language. 
— Age.     Oldest   extant   %oritte7i   Targums    do    not    go 

beyond  1st  century  A.  I). 
— Targum  of  Onkelas  most  important. 

3.  Syriac. 

—  Whole  Bible  into  Western  Aramaean  (Syriac). 
— Date — Probably  2d  century  A.  D. 
— Syriac  the  birth-language  of  Xy. 

— This    version    excellent — very   literal    and    of    high 
authority. 

4.  Vulgate. 

— Whole  Bible  into  Latin. 
■  — The  first  "  Italic  "  version  was  made  from  the  Septua- 
gint— 2d  century  A.  D. 

— This  was  revised  by  Jerome  384-404. 

— Jerome   also  executed  an  independent  version  which 
came  to  be  to  some  extent  blended  with  this. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


— Hence  Vulgate  a  composite  of 
{a).  "Old  Italic." 
{b).  Revised  Italic. 
(c).    Jerome's  Version. 

XII. 
English  Versions  of  the  Bible. 

1.  Wyclif 's— 1380  and    1388.      New    Testament    and 
part  of  Old  Testament. 

—  From  the  Vulgate. 

—  Revised  in  1382  by  Nicholas  Hereford;  and  in 
1388  by  John  Purvey,  who  had  been  Wyclif 's 
curate.  More  than  four-fifths  of  Wyclif 's  Bibles 
now  extant  are  of  this  latter  revision. 

—  Some  noticeable  facts — 

[a).  Made  from  Vulgate,  and  not  the  original. 
(c).  Only  English  Bible  for  nearly  150  years. 
{b).  Popular  rather  than  ecclesiastical. 

2.  Tyndales — 1525-1535 — New  Testament  and  part  of 
Old  Testament. 

(«).  First  English  Bible  translated  from  the  original. 

{b).  First  printed  English  Bible. 

(c).  Possessed  of  marked  excellences: 

ici).  Critical  scholarship. 

ip).  Felicities  of  expression. 

(c).  Practical  sagacity  and  popular  adaptation. 
{d).  This  version  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  English 
versions. 

3.  Coverdale's— 1535— Whole  Bible. 

A  revision  of  Tyndale's  from  the  Vulgate  and  I^uther's 

German  Bible. 

It  was  a  compromise  Bible. 

4.  Matthew's  Bible— 1537. 

{a).  Some  have  thought  "  Thomas  Matthew  "  to  be  a 
pseudonym  for  John  Rogers,  whose  initials  are 
attached  to  the  preface.  Of  this  there  is  no  proof. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  33 


It  maybe  that  this  unknown  "  Thomas  Matthew,'* 
was  a  patron  of  the  enterprise. 
{h).  This  was  the  first  authorized  English  Bible. 

5.  The  great  Bible— 1539-1540. 

(a).  Sometime  called  Cranmer's,  but  incorrectly. 
{b).  Formally  attacked  by  the  inquisition. 

(c).  Source  of  most  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  book  of 
common  prayer. 

6.  Geneva  Bible — New  Testament,  1557.  Whole  Bible, 
1560. 

{a).  First  English  Bible  printed  in  Roman  letters. 

{b).  First  to  avow  the  principle  of  Italic  words, 

(c).  First  to  use  the  verse  division. 

{d).  First  to  omit  the  Apochrypha. 

{e).  Specially  suited  for  family  and  private  study. 

(,/).  Some  attention  given  to  the  original  text. 

{g).  Very  popular — 90  editions  before  present  author- 
ized version. 

{h).  Contained  helpful  explanatory  notes.  (Some- 
times known  as  the  "  Breeches  Bible.") 

7.  Bishops'  Bible— 1568-1572. 
Basis  of  King  James'  version. 

8.  Rheims  and  Douay.     (Catholic  version). 
(«).  New  Testament  at  Rheims  in  1582. 
(^>).  Old  Testament  at  Douay  in  1609. 

9.  King  James'  authorized  version. 

{a).  History.      '54    translators    selected:  47  actually 
employed.     Work    began   in    1607;    Bible    pub- 
lished in  1611. 
(J).  General  character — most  excellent. 

This  the  agreeing  opinion  of  critics  of  all  classes 
of  belief, 
(c).  Borne  defects. 

(1).  Based  on  an  inferior  text. 

(2).  Contains  some/aults  of  translatio7i. 


34  Syllabus  of  Lecture 


(a).  Distinctions  created. 

i  cannot. 
Rom.  4th  chapter,  Xoyi  Lojxai  \  reckon. 

(  compute. 
1  Cor.  3: 17. 
Phil.  2:13,  etc.,  etc. 
{b).  Distinctions  obliterated. 

{a).    ady?-y£€vva  =       "  Hell." 

zoov-dvpiov  =       "  Beast." 

SiaSoXOi-daipiGDv    r=      "  Devil." 
(c).  Inconsistencies  in  proper  names, 
(d).  Improper  treatment  of  names  of  Deity. 
(e).  Some  errors  in  Syyitax. 
(f).  Some  errors  in  Lexicography. 

Gen.  6;3;  Job  19:  23-26;  Psalms  49:14. 
Acts  17:22,  23;  1  Cor.  13:  12,  etc.,  etc. 

XIII. 

Genuineness. 
Defined.     The  relation  of  a  book  to  its  author.     It 
involves  two  elements: 
(1).  That  the  claims  of  a  book,  as  to  its  author,  are 

true;  whether  it  be 

(a).  Anonymous,  e.  g.,  many  Biblical  books. 

(b).  Or  by  an  author  who  uses  a  7iom  de  plume^ 
as  Diedrich  Knickerbocker's  New  York. 

(c).  Or  in  his  proper  name. 
(2).  That  it  has  been  uncorruptedly  preserved. 
Distinguished  from  authenticity. 

—  Genuineness  is  the  relation  of  a  book  to  its  author, 
and  so  is  opposed  to  all  forms  of  illegtimacy. 

—  Authenticity  is  the  relation  between  a  document 
and  the  matters  of  fact  which  it  purports  to  repre- 
sent. Its  more  common  name  is  trustworthiness. 
It  is  based  on  the  competency  and  honesty  of  tlie 
writer. 


fSyllabus  of  Lecttires.  35 

3.  Proofs  of  genuineness. 

r  Hebrew,  Old  Testament,  1488. 
(1).  Printed  books,  \  Greek,  New  Testament.  1514. 

(  Vulgate,  1452. 
(2).  Manuscripts,  f  Jews  and  Samaritans. 

(3.)  Versions,  Pharis's  &  Sadducees. 

(4).  Quotations  and  allusions,  J   Jews  and  Christians. 
(5).  Relations  of  parties,  j   East'n  &  West'n  Ch. 

I    Catholic  &  Protestant. 
1^  Protestant  sects. 

XIV. 
Authenticity  of  the  Bible. 

Shown  by 

1.  Its  harmony  with  itself, 
(a).  As  to  general  plan, 
(b).  As  to  doctrine. 

(c).  As  to  facts  of  history, 
(d).  As  to  sjnrit  and  tone. 

2.  With  the  jyhysical  conditions  of  its  assumed  origin, 
(a).  The  land  with  its  climate,  fau?ia,  flora,  etc.,  etc. 
(6.).  The  people;  their  domestic,  civil,  religions  life. 

3.  With  prof  ane  history. 
Some  special  issues. 

[a).  Use  of  the  grape  and  wine  in  Egypt. 
{b).  Acts  13:7. 

(c).  Hamitic  character  of  Babylonish  Kingdom. 
{d).  Life  of  Christ. 

4.  With  latest  historical  researches, 
[a).  At  Jerusalem. 

(b).  At  JSFineveh. 

(c).  In  Palestine  in  general. 

(d).  In  Moab. 

5.  With  existing  i^istitutions. 
{a).  The  Sabbath. 

{b).  The  Lord's  Supper, 
(c).  Baptism. 


Syllabus  of  Lectwf 


3»)  Bvllahus  of  Lectures. 


6.  Of  its  facts  icith  its  doctrines, 
[a).  As  to  Jesns  C/irist. 
(b).  As  to  spirituaJ  character. 
(c).  Moral  precepts  in  general. 


INTERPRETATION 


XV. 

Sacred  Hermeneutics. 
1.  Defined. — Tlie   Science  of  biblical  Interpretation .     Its 
province    is  to   set  forth  its  principles  and   Jaios.      It 
differs  from  exegesis  as  the  irhole  from  a  part. 
General  Principles. 

(1).  With    certain    qualifications    the    Bible    must    be 
interpreted  like  any  other  book.     These  qualifica- 
tions arise — 
(a).  From  its  composite  character. 
{b).    Its  spiritual  character. 

(c).    Its  divinity  and    hence  its  exhcnistless  fulness, 
(d).  The  typical  and  prophetical  element. 
{a).  Events  seen  in  perspective. 
(b).   Double  fulfillment. 

(c).    Sometimes  an  ideal  standpoint  as  to  time. 
— This     principle    sweeps    away  dangerous    errors. 
{a).  The  Papistical   Theory — certain    men    insp>ired 

to  interpret. 
{b).   The  Fanatical  Theory — Holy   Spirit   only   and 

sufficient  guide, 
(e).    The  Allegorical  Theory — Hidden  and  mystical 
sense. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures.  •i7 


(2).  The  Interpreter  must  recognize  the  essential  unity 
of  Script ureit.  This  unity  is  involved  in  its  divine 
authorship. 

(3).  And  the  purpose  of  the  Bible — a  book  of  Salva- 
tion. 

(4).  He  must  bring  to  his  work  suitable  quali/lcatio/is. 
(a).  Moral  and  spiritual. 

(a).  Cordial  sympathy  with  S2yiritual  truth, 
(b).    Freedom  {rom  prejudice. 

(c).    Singleness   of    desire  to    know   the   mind    of 
God. 

{b).    Literary. 

{a).  Good  general  education, 
(b).    Knowledge  of  sacred  languages, 
(c).    And  of  sacred  a^'chmology. 

(d).   Acquaintance  with  man,  especially  on  his  relig- 
ious side, 
(e).   And  with  the  history  of  interpretation. 
3.  Rules  of  interpretation. 

(1).  Interpret   philologicaUy:    that  is  according   to    the 
general  laws  of  language. 
{a).  As  to  words. 

{a).  The  etymological  sense. 
(5).  The  usage, 
(b).  As  to  construction. 

Acts  2:47.  Attention  to  the  tense  removes  a 
difficulty. 

John  13:  2 — "  Supper  transpiring." 
(c).  As  to  minuter  details. 

1st  Peter  1: 1 — The  order  of  the  countries  indi- 
cates Peter  to  have  been  in  Babylon  and  not 
Rome. 

Mark  6:  39 — "Upon  the  gree/t  grass." 
Mark  15:21 — "Coming  from  the  field." 


38  Syllahvs  of  Lectures. 

(2).  Interpret  historically. 

(Luke  19:  41 — "  When  he  was  come  near  he  beheld 
the  city." — There  is  a  point  in  this  journey  where 
"  the  city  "  bursts  suddenly  and  impressively  upon 
the  sight. 

Luke  13:  28;  Luke  8:23;  Mark  14:  2G;  Prov.  25:  13; 
Mat.  5 :  14,  etc. 
(3).  Interpret  consistently. 

V  Gal.  1:23. 
[a).  Immediate    con-  J    Rom.  3:3.  Heb.  11:1. 

text— ^.  (/.  Faith,  1   Acts.  17:  31.  Rom.  3:  28. 

[  Rom.  14:  23. 
ip).  General  scope — Rom.  4:5. 
(c).  Position  of  writer — Job  17:26. 
(d).  General  teaching  of  ss. — "  analogy  of  faith." 
{a).  Yerhal  parallels. 
ip).  Meal  parallels. 
(4).  Interpret  sjm'Uiially. 
(a).  Manifest  aim — John  5:  39;  Rom.  15:4. 
[b).  Illustrations  in  New  Testament.    Mat.  2: 15,  23. 
(c).  Bible    should  be  treated  as  nature.     Its   office  is 
to  reveal  God. 


WORKING  ORDER  FOR  1882-3. 

1.  What  claims  has  the  Bible  upon  our  attention  and 
study  ? 

2.  What  is  the  Bible? 

3.  Is  the  Bible  genuine? 

4.  Is  the  Bible  true? 

5.  Is  the  Bible  inspired? 

6.  How  should  the  Bible  be  interpreted  and  used? 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Syracuse,  N.    V. 

■       Stockton,  Calif. 


BS591 .H48 

Biblical  introduction  :  syllabus  of 

.MM."M.f,?,?.I!!'^°l?.^'*^^'  Seminary-Speer  Library 


m 


012  00043  7600 


